902 replies to this topic

[Achille Aubergine]

He directed a few other box office bombs after his Bond tenure like Iron Eagle3 and Christopher Columbus.

A great film this one...With Marlon Brando, Tom Selleck, Rachel Ward, Robert Davi, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Benicio Del Toro sort of "Hall of Fame".

[CardShark]

I am honestly curious to see what Mr Mendes will bring to Bond 23?

[SecretAgentFan]

Although it´s not fashionable around here: I admire and like Sam Mendes´ work in film and theatre immensely. I think he will be able to draw amazing performances from a flawlessly chosen cast, inject sly and intelligent humor into the proceedings and tell a well-rounded and structured story visualized by world class cinematographers (hopefully Roger Deakins).

Having said that, I checked out EDGE OF DARKNESS recently. Again I was astonished by some of Martin Campbell´s directing choices (the constant hushed and mumbling tone in which the actors had to speak annoyed me with its monotony). And while Campbell is very good with directing tension and action I wonder why his films are so hit and miss, depending on the script. Does he film them the way he gets them (like Eastwood supposedly works)? Then he does not seem to be really selective. Or does he involve himself a lot into the development process? Then his feeling for structure is sometimes a bit off. Of course, this is all speculative and I don´t want to put down Mr.Campbell (there are always other factors at work, too). But I´m just saying: Sam Mendes definitely has a much better track record than him. So instead of booing Mendes before he has delivered the next Bond film, let´s look at the work of those directors (like Campbell) who often get lauded around here without really looking at their achievements.

[The Shark]

And what exactly were Terence Young and Peter Hunt's great cinematic track records like outside of Bond? With the exception of Young's WAIT UNTIL DARK, neither of them were particularly noteworthy directors. What they had however, was a ability to elegantly entertain, and larger-than-life personalities (that came off on screen)) that matched Bond's own. Why do we have to have such prestigious luvvie directors, who are often brought with little to no affinity for Bond, and are subsequently overwhelmed by the sheer scale and legacy of the series - producing schizophrenic, uneven pictures that don't know what they're trying to be?

I say, bring back the everyman director-for-hire. At least he had a clear vision.

[Sebastian Tombs]

Well, from my viewpoint, it's not that I think that Mendes is a bad director. My main concern is that I feel he's out of his element with a Bond movie, and I'm slightly puzzled by an A-list director like him, known for his stage work and artier-than-the-usual sensibilities, suddenly directing a Bond film. I've seen remarks from Mendes fans who feel he's taking a step downward with this; while I don't necessarily agree, it does seem to be an odd career move. And while his track record before this is hardly critically panned, there is a definite pattern of declining box office, which lends a bit of credence to the rumors that Mendes is only doing this for the sake of a commercial hit.

Having seen a number of Mendes' previous films, I have my doubts. His characters lack motivations and he puts people in conflicts and miserable situations without ever exploring what led them to make the choices that got them there. (One of my problems with "Revolutionary Road", a film I found profoundly overrated.) "Jarhead" is about everything I don't want from a Bond movie...dreary, lifeless, and dull, despite some good performances. I liked "American Beauty" a lot, although it has some fairly big flaws, and I understand he's got a lot of respect in the theater.

When all is said and done, I guess all I can do is just see how he does. There may not be reason for booing, but there's certainly no reason to break out the champagne, either. We'll all just have to see what sort of job he does. But until then, I can't help but have my doubts.

[Pussfeller]

And what exactly were Terence Young and Peter Hunt's great cinematic track records like outside of Bond? With the exception of Young's WAIT UNTIL DARK, neither of them were particularly noteworthy directors. What they had however, was a ability to elegantly entertain, and larger-than-life personalities (that came off on screen)) that matched Bond's own. Why do we have to have such prestigious luvvie directors, who are often brought with little to no affinity for Bond, and are subsequently overwhelmed by the sheer scale and legacy of the series - producing schizophrenic, uneven pictures that don't know what they're trying to be?

I say, bring back the everyman director-for-hire. At least he had a clear vision.

I agree that the hired-gun directors have one obvious advantage over the "luvvies". If all you do is make Bond films, you get pretty good at it, especially in terms of pacing and consistency. But I think you overlook an essential element: the producers. When the Bond producers were hands-on, the director didn't need much of a "vision". Now, it seems like the producers are inclined to entrust a lot to the directors, including major creative decisions, which may explain why they plump for prestigious directors. It's a very lazy strategy, and seldom turns out well. As you say, it results in bloated, ill-proportioned monstrosities. When a director knows that this is his one and only chance to make a Bond film, naturally he'll try to cram it with everything, resulting in the proverbial taco-stuffed lobster. If each director were given, say, a three-film contract, then they would (1) be more likely to exercise restraint and (2) pick up Bond-making wisdom along the way.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Although it´s not fashionable around here: I admire and like Sam Mendes´ work in film and theatre immensely. I think he will be able to draw amazing performances from a flawlessly chosen cast, inject sly and intelligent humor into the proceedings and tell a well-rounded and structured story visualized by world class cinematographers (hopefully Roger Deakins).

Yes, If Mendes doing the next Bond comes together I'm also hoping for some great cinematography, and if Deakins does it that would be very good indeed.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I agree that the hired-gun directors have one obvious advantage over the "luvvies". If all you do is make Bond films, you get pretty good at it, especially in terms of pacing and consistency. But I think you overlook an essential element: the producers. When the Bond producers were hands-on, the director didn't need much of a "vision". Now, it seems like the producers are inclined to entrust a lot to the directors, including major creative decisions, which may explain why they plump for prestigious directors. It's a very lazy strategy, and seldom turns out well. As you say, it results in bloated, ill-proportioned monstrosities. When a director knows that this is his one and only chance to make a Bond film, naturally he'll try to cram it with everything, resulting in the proverbial taco-stuffed lobster. If each director were given, say, a three-film contract, then they would (1) be more likely to exercise restraint and (2) pick up Bond-making wisdom along the way.

I'm not sure I agree here. Im not sure the producers are any less 'hands-on' now than they were previously and furthermore i'm also not sure the producers are inclined to entrust more to directors now than in years gone by. If you look at the sixites films as an example each respective director really made their own mark - the style and sensibility of the films changed when the likes of Hamilton, Gilbert and Hunt entered the scene.
If Mendes does direct 23 (I hope he does) who is to say he will not return at some point and direct a second 007 pic?

I am comforted by the fact that Mendes is (apparently) still keen to do the next Bond in spite of the production delays owing to the MGM business. This must mean at the very least that he remains hungry to helm the film, and that can only be a good thing IMO.

[SecretAgentFan]

And what exactly were Terence Young and Peter Hunt's great cinematic track records like outside of Bond? With the exception of Young's WAIT UNTIL DARK, neither of them were particularly noteworthy directors. What they had however, was a ability to elegantly entertain, and larger-than-life personalities (that came off on screen)) that matched Bond's own. Why do we have to have such prestigious luvvie directors, who are often brought with little to no affinity for Bond, and are subsequently overwhelmed by the sheer scale and legacy of the series - producing schizophrenic, uneven pictures that don't know what they're trying to be?

I say, bring back the everyman director-for-hire. At least he had a clear vision.

I was not talking about Young or Hunt. I was talking about Mendes and Campbell. And I was not saying that Bond NEEDS a noteworthy director. I said: Mendes being a noteworthy director does not exclude him from being a worthy Bond director. Also: a workman-like director like Campbell does not necessarily produce a good Bond film. So, instead of slamming Mendes before you have even seen one frame of his Bond film why don´t you just give him a chance?

[Zorin Industries]

Now, it seems like the producers are inclined to entrust a lot to the directors, including major creative decisions, which may explain why they plump for prestigious directors. It's a very lazy strategy, and seldom turns out well. As you say, it results in bloated, ill-proportioned monstrosities. When a director knows that this is his one and only chance to make a Bond film, naturally he'll try to cram it with everything, resulting in the proverbial taco-stuffed lobster. If each director were given, say, a three-film contract, then they would (1) be more likely to exercise restraint and (2) pick up Bond-making wisdom along the way.

It's not a lazy strategy. It is the way they are completely entitled to progress with. And it is also the way the Bond films have been made since 1962. They are producer-led films. That consistency (whatever folk want to get sniffy about) is why they have lasted so long.

There are also less workmanlike directors. And can anyone define workmanlike from the perspective of how a film is helmed? ALL directors are workmanlike. They are just workmanlike in different ways. There is not one director that has been a "yes" man for Eon. That is the last thing they need or want. And to label any directors as "luvvies" is grossly naive. ALL directors set out to make the best film with artistic merit on different parts of an artistic spectrum.

Is Marc Forster a "luvvie" director because he filmed the film adaptation of the book THE KITE RUNNER? Was Lewis Gilbert a "luvvie" director because he made the film adaptations of the books CARVE HER NAME WITH PRIDE and REACH FOR THE SKY?

[The Shark]

Now, it seems like the producers are inclined to entrust a lot to the directors, including major creative decisions, which may explain why they plump for prestigious directors. It's a very lazy strategy, and seldom turns out well. As you say, it results in bloated, ill-proportioned monstrosities. When a director knows that this is his one and only chance to make a Bond film, naturally he'll try to cram it with everything, resulting in the proverbial taco-stuffed lobster. If each director were given, say, a three-film contract, then they would (1) be more likely to exercise restraint and (2) pick up Bond-making wisdom along the way.

It's not a lazy strategy. It is the way they are completely entitled to progress with. And it is also the way the Bond films have been made since 1962. They are producer-led films. That consistency (whatever folk want to get sniffy about) is why they have lasted so long.

There are also less workmanlike directors. And can anyone define workmanlike from the perspective of how a film is helmed? ALL directors are workmanlike. They are just workmanlike in different ways. There is not one director that has been a "yes" man for Eon. That is the last thing they need or want. And to label any directors as "luvvies" is grossly naive. ALL directors set out to make the best film with artistic merit on different parts of an artistic spectrum.

That's what I'm getting at. When I use the word luvvie, I'm thinking of specific type of sensibility, and critical following. Not 'an artistic vision.' As you say, that's far too broad a brush. All film makers have that, in one form or another.

Is Marc Forster a "luvvie" director because he filmed the film adaptation of the book THE KITE RUNNER?

More precisely how he filmed it. A nauseating tastefulness about it for me, compared to the literary source. And that includes his other book adaptations.

[Zorin Industries]

More precisely how he filmed it. A nauseating tastefulness about it for me, compared to the literary source. And that includes his other book adaptations.

Then I'm not going to carry on with this one as opinion is being dressed up as fact.

[The Shark]

More precisely how he filmed it. A nauseating tastefulness about it for me, compared to the literary source. And that includes his other book adaptations.

Then I'm not going to carry on with this one as opinion is being dressed up as fact.

It's all opinion. 'Who is' and 'why' so and so is a luvvie director is down to one's opinion - standards, prejudices and preconceptions.

Just because I've haven't prefaced my point with IMO, doesn't mean it's intended to be read as a fact.

[blueman]

Jeez, I don't agree with the ol' Sharkster much, but he's clearly just talking about the kinda Bond film he'd prefer EON make, even if it ain't never gonna happen.

It's 50 years of cinematic Bond we're reacting to, no way possible for any new Bond film to appeal to all fans at this point. Heck that CR with the unlikely Craig seemingly pleased so many fans is kinda astounding to me. QOS not chiming as many fan bells makes sense as it took a rather bold (whether one likes it or not) step away from the more nostalgia-driven CR.

What we haven't heard is exactly what Mendes is so keen on re Bond. Does he worship DAF? Does he think QOS hit the right Bond chord? I have no idea what his particular take on Bond is, but likely as not it won't satisfy all Bond fans either. And not sure that's a bad thing, I'd rather those bold steps than tired old cliches trotted out ad nauseum. What's key here lately is, unlike say Wilson/Glen with LTK, EON is getting some top talent to create these bold new Bonds. I rank Forster with Young and Hunt (and Hamilton at his best), and I suspect Mendes will sit right up there too.

[JimmyBond]

I don't always agree with Shark either, but what he wants out of Bond is not something that I believe EON is incapable of doing in this day and age.

Sure I enjoy QoS and was one of it's most vocal supporters back in the day. But their is definitely room for improvement. Just like Licence to Kill was followed by the more traditional Goldeneye. I see no reason that Craig's third film can't be more light hearted and back to basics.

As (I believe it was) Shark pointed out, this phase of dark brooding anti-heroes is coming to a close. I'm not suggesting they radically alter the way things are with Craig's Bond, but pulling back a bit, allowing him to have a bit of fun...and in effect allowing the Bond character to have more fun, would be greatly appreciated (especially by this fan).

[SecretAgentFan]

Isn´t it funny that after only four years (and one other Bond film) people want the light-hearted Bond back?

[Germanlady]

Isn´t it funny that after only four years (and one other Bond film) people want the light-hearted Bond back?

Light hearfted, yes, but that doesn't mean necessarely silly - it means let the man have some fun, that's all and I think, that's an on the plate anyway. They GOT it°!

[blueman]

I'm fine keeping the hard-edged Bond from QOS, but that's just me.

[The Shark]

Isn´t it funny that after only four years (and one other Bond film) people want the light-hearted Bond back?

Fours years is a long time in the world of cinema, especially in this hyper-fast day and age.

[SecretAgentFan]

True. I just meant to remind some people here who were so happy when Craig became the tormented hard-edged Bond in CR and now consider this a drag.

But I don´t mean to stir a fight here. Opinions change. Sometimes faster than one might believe. Mine, too, of course. I guess the leaning towards embittered and dark was definitely a reaction to the post 9/11-atmosphere (not only with Bond but with everything in today´s cinema). Now a point seems to have been reached where people just need escapism again. And that´s perfectly fine.

Let Craig have his GOLDFINGER/THE SPY WHO LOVED ME-type picture. And Mendes will probably have search for something like that too, just to escape the more serious tone of his previous pictures (AWAY WE GO already tried to break that mood).

[Matt_13]

I think if the Craigverse loses its edge, it will fail to engage all together. The whole reason DC is doing Bond is to give a turn that represents something fresh and interesting. I don't necessarily believe the gritty era of cinema is coming to a close, but even if it is why should Bond compensate? You can argue that's what got us Casino Royale, but the Brosnan films were dated when they were just being released. By keeping things rooted in reality, at least for the duration of Craig's tenure, there is still a chance that Bond can remain relevant. Let's face it, there's really not much more for Bond to do these days. Fighting a vague idea such as terrorism will only go so far. The only way we'll get more out of this character is if EON continue to push forward. If they regress back to the days of campy, gadget driven, heartless action fodder, we'll see Bond disappear within the next decade. There are plenty of action heroes who fight "the bad guys," and those films probably cost a hell of a lot less to make. They need to keep Bond different, while honoring the tradition's the franchise has established. Unfortunately for many of you, that does not mean stripping away all of the layers again and sending Bond after a megalomaniac with a quip and a smile. We have to see him bleed. It's the only way Bond will prolong his conclusion.

[SecretAgentFan]

Let's face it, there's really not much more for Bond to do these days. Fighting a vague idea such as terrorism will only go so far. The only way we'll get more out of this character is if EON continue to push forward. They need to keep Bond different, while honoring the tradition's the franchise has established.

And what do you mean exactly by "push forward"? How does the ideal Bond 23 look for you?

[jaguar007]

I think many people want Bond to lighten up a bit from QoS, without going as far as being campy and silly. It is certainly possible. Something similar to the tone of the first 3/4 of Casino Royale.

[The Shark]

I think if the Craigverse loses its edge, it will fail to engage all together. The whole reason DC is doing Bond is to give a turn that represents something fresh and interesting.

My argument is that the 'dark and gritty' USP stopped by fresh and interesting quite a while ago. Every Bond film since LICENSE TO KILL has now had some kind of personal bent to it, and it's become the norm - another cliché.

There are plenty of action heroes who fight "the bad guys," and those films probably cost a hell of a lot less to make.

If only Bond films today would cost 'a hell of lot less to make.' The inflating budgets are becoming more and more compromising to the attempts at drama.

They need to keep Bond different.

So no more Bourne or chic flick derivatives, as in QOS and CR?

[JimmyBond]

If they regress back to the days of campy, gadget driven, heartless action fodder, we'll see Bond disappear within the next decade. There are plenty of action heroes who fight "the bad guys," and those films probably cost a hell of a lot less to make.

I don't presume to speak for Shark, but I'm pretty sure he's not suggesting that. I'm not suggesting that either. There is no reason they can't inject some fun into the films without it being "campy, gadget driven heartless action fodder." Whatever that means. I certainly don't see anything campy about Connery's first four films, and if EON can strike that balance again I'd be happy.

There's only so far you can take this realistic Bond before it starts getting dull. I feel QoS was as far as they could go in that direction, just like I felt DAD was as far as they could have gone in the other direction.

[blueman]

Isn´t it funny that after only four years (and one other Bond film) people want the light-hearted Bond back?

Fours years is a long time in the world of cinema, especially in this hyper-fast day and age.

Isn't it just? Yet you want EON to produce the type of film popular twenty, thirty years ago. They're in business to make money, and seem to know what they're doing. They've even bettered their own recent product by casting Craig and the reboot, two things most fans gleefully hated on.

Clearly, EON doesn't make decisions to please fans, never have and never will. Their bottom line with Bond has always been: what will put the most butts in seats? Followed by: how do we keep this 50 year behemoth fresh for audiences? That second one will likely determine if they go light(er) with 23, it's why they did such an about-face after DAD if you believe Wilson.

One thing all Bond fans should take heart in, EON is committed to making a high quality Bond product. They could make cheap little Bond films ala Sci Fi creature fests, but they don't. At least we're disagreeing about very high-end filmmaking here, I'm very thankful for that after so many years of subpar efforts. Go Team EON!

[Quantumofsolace007]

I have to say they can inject fun without losing the gritty nature of the beast. Case in Point look at film like the A-team or a tv show like Human target

[DamnCoffee]

I couldn't understand a word of that.

[JimmyBond]

I have to say they can inject fun without losing the gritty nature of the beast. Case in Point look at film like the A-team or a tv show like Human target

I'm not sure citing either of those examples is helping your case much. There is nothing gritty about The A-Team movie.

[tdalton]

I have to say they can inject fun without losing the gritty nature of the beast. Case in Point look at film like the A-team or a tv show like Human target

I'm not sure citing either of those examples is helping your case much. There is nothing gritty about The A-Team movie.

Agreed.

I would hope that neither of those are templates for any future Bond films. Human Target is a pretty entertaining show, but it's template is not what Bond needs to be copying. Also, Bond should not ever copy the remake of The A-Team in any aspect.